Congressman Lee Zeldin's Statement On His YES Vote To Repeal AHCA

The American Health Care Act Passes House

Washington, DC – Congressman Lee Zeldin (R, NY-1) just voted YES on the American Health Care Act (H.R. 1628), which passed the House of Representatives, to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. After this vote, the Congressman released the following statement:

“Over the past several years, I have heard from many constituents who have shared their thoughts and ideas on how to improve healthcare in America. Their perspectives span across the ideological spectrum and vary greatly. I sincerely appreciate each and every person who has taken the time to express their opinions on this very important topic.

Almost everyone agrees that our current system is deeply flawed. For example, just yesterday, Iowa’s last major insurer through the ACA, Medica, threatened to remove itself unless something is done to stabilize the markets. Imagine no option at all for an entire state? None! There are too many other examples of how this law is deeply flawed. We all agree healthcare must be improved and that doing nothing is not an option. We are the greatest country in the world and we can and must do better for all citizens.

One of my top priorities in Congress has been to improve healthcare in America. I have always supported the repeal and replace of Obamacare and a smooth transition to a better reality that will improve affordability, access, quality of care and options, while continuing to cover Americans with pre-existing conditions and allowing children to stay on their parent’s policy.

The American Health Care Act provides relief from billions of dollars of crushing taxes and mandates enacted under the ACA. Additionally, the bill repeals the individual and employer mandates, taxes on prescription and over the counter medications, health insurance premiums and medical devices.

This bill would help Americans access healthcare in ways they previously could not, by increasing competition in the marketplace and offering plans that will be tailored to individual needs. The bill provides flexible options for coverage, such as increased access to health savings accounts, which would allow individuals to set aside pre-tax dollars to help cover health care costs. The bill also creates a Patient and State Stability Fund, endowed with billions of dollars, to increase access to necessary services and to help keep costs down. I am also strongly supportive of the Collins-Faso Amendment, also known as the Property Tax Reduction Act, the single greatest act of fiscal relief ever provided to the County of Suffolk and its taxpayers. Shifting the local share of Medicaid costs to the state, this amendment was included in the legislation that passed the House today. There are also many other very positive aspects of this bill.

There are so many outright lies attacking this legislation, like the social media campaign absurdly claiming that 310,000 NY-1 residents with pre-existing conditions would lose their health care under the AHCA. That’s not within a million degrees of accurate.  The amount of outright lies about the AHCA that have been manufactured and echoed by individuals and entities have been insane. The bill protects people with pre-existing conditions, and gives states greater flexibility to lower premiums and stabilize the insurance market. The lies about this bill are being perpetuated by the same people who told us if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan, if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor, and that premiums under the ACA would decrease by $2,500 per family.

Passage of this bill is an important step in a multi pronged effort to improve health care in our country.

There is still much more work ahead to improve healthcare for all Americans in addition to the passage of this bill. The next steps of this process include administrative action to further ensure a smooth transition, as well as additional legislative action, which started with the passage of the Small Business Health Fairness Act (H.R. 1101) and the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act (H.R. 372), to allow the pooling of policies across state lines and reform current law to increase competition in the health insurance market. There are also other necessary reforms to healthcare that can’t be accomplished through the budget reconciliation process that still should get done: lowering drug costs for patients, providing additional flexibility in Medicaid for states to manage their own programs as effectively as possible, and medical legal reforms.

A smooth transition during this period is critical. I will continue to follow all developments on this process closely over the coming months.”

Comments

[James Olson]

It can be argued that the ACA is not "deeply flawed" but, rather; like Social Security and Medicare over the years, need tweaks and improvements. There is a purely political reason why one would not want to fix what's not working while keeping what does. Using anecdotal evidence, of what isn't working, to prove nothing does is a disservice in that it the ACA works very well for more people than not.

The AHCA provides relief from taxes only to the very wealthy and large corporations. Do they need relief at the expense of everyone else? The AHCA provides relief from ACA mandates (otherwise known as "minimum standards of health care coverage"). Since when did minimum health care standards become a bad thing?

The AHCA repeals individual and employer mandates so young, healthy people aren't required to pay into a system, which spread insurer's risk among a large population, to help keep insurance costs down and employers aren't required to provide employees health insurance at all. What problem with the ACA did this solve? Fewer people with insurance reduces one's likelihood to seek preventative and early treatment of health issues. Fewer people with insurance increases the insurer's risk and, therefore, increases coverage costs.

The only "flexible options for coverage" rests with giving the insurance companies the flexible option to cover whatever they want to cover and to the extent they might (or might not) want to cover it. Remember, there are no 'minimum standards' mandates in the AHCA.

"Increased access to health savings accounts" is a misstatement. A health savings account is nothing more than a pre-tax wage deduction into a savings account. The ACA gives this to everyone now. The AHCA doesn't increase access to it, the AHCA makes it the only option many will have (assuming they don't already live paycheck-to-paycheck and can afford to save). Given how expensive medical treatment is, how much one can save will determine if it will cover their medical bills.

The Patient and State Stability Fund already exists. The AHCA provides $80 billion for the Fund over the next 5 years (the previous version provided $100 billion over 10 years). The Fund already is funded with $120 billion (+ $80 billion = $200 billion). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the Fund, under the AHCA, will need $300 billion to "help keep costs down". Without that additional $100 billion, costs will rise. What happened to that $100 billion? The AHCA gave the very wealthy and corporations the aforementioned tax break. Who will make up for the Fund's shortfall? The rest of us, in the form of higher health insurance costs and lower coverage.

The AHCA allows states to get a waiver so insurance coverage in those states won't need to cover pre-existing conditions but, if they do, can charge substantially higher premiums for those who have pre-existing conditions. Since the AHCA allows for such a waiver, how can one claim coverage for pre-existing conditions is protected? Perhaps one is saying, "it's protected for those who live in a state that doesn't get a waiver". Okay. But what if New York gets a waiver?

"Pooling of policies across state lines" could be a good thing...if there were federal minimum health coverage mandates and no state waiver regarding pre-existing conditions. But, with the lack of minimum standards and state waivers, we will likely find all insurance companies will register in that one state with the lowest standards and a state waiver. In effect, insurance companies will rush to the lowest common denominator and that will be our "freedom of choice"....take it, or leave it.

The ACA was flawed for some people and a blessing for most. It needed fixing because of the compromises forced upon it by the GOP in Congress and (I'm sure) certain party interests of the Democrats. To claim it needs to be repealed rather than fixed is nothing more than a political move and resentment toward those who are neither rich or healthy. Look back into history and see what the GOP had to say about the new Social Security program, or the new Medicare program, or the new Medicaid program. How did those things turn out? Do they help more than they hurt?

I can understand some people believe in survival of the fittest and richest. I can understand the desire not to subsidize poor health choices and reckless behaviour. But do we really want to live in a country in which basic, minimal preventative and responsive medical care is rationed to only those who can afford it? Where's one's freedom of choice in that?